In Blanchette v. Superior Court, a case of first impression, the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal confirmed a strict construction of the time limits under California's Right to Repair Act ().

Under California's Right to Repair Act (the Act), a claimant may bring suit for violation of certain standards in newly constructed single-family homes or attached residential units, regardless of whether any damage or injury has occurred (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 895 to 945.5). The statute outlines a pre-litigation procedure of notice to the homebuilder and an opportunity for the homebuilder to respond, including repairing any defects if appropriate.

Blanchette is the owner of a home constructed by GHA Enterprises. On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with a notice of claim alleging several defects. GHA responded 21 days later, asserting that the notice of claim did not contain sufficient detail as required under Section 910 of the California Civil Code.

Blanchette responded that since GHA's response was outside of the 14-day time limit stated in the Act, it excused the homeowners from any obligations under the Act. Blanchette then filed a construction defect class action complaint against GHA in the trial court. However, the trial court agreed with GHA that Blanchette's notice of claim lacked sufficient detail to trigger GHA's obligations under the Act and stayed the action.

Blanchette filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's order.

The Fourth District decided the novel issue of when defects in a notice of claim must be raised by a builder under the Act. The court determined that Section 910 provides that the notice of claim must contain certain basic elements:

When a notice of claim contains these basic elements, service of the notice triggers the 14-day response time under Section 913 of the California Civil Code. If a builder thinks that the notice of claim is insufficient because of lack of specificity, the builder must raise the objection within that 14-day period, and cannot simply ignore the notice.

Based on this analysis, the court of appeal overturned the trial court's ruling, holding that GHA's failure to timely respond to Blanchette's notice of claim relieved Blanchette of any further obligations under the Act.

This case is important because it the first time a California appellate court has ruled in respect to when a homebuilder must raise defects in the notice of claim a homeowner must file before commencing a construction defect action under the Act.

Builders should be aware that failure to raise objections to a notice of claim within the 14-day time period will likely waive that argument.

For more information on California's Right to Repair Act, see State Q&A, Construction Laws and Customs: California: Questions 17 and 23.